|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 19 2018 07:16 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 05:30 On_Slaught wrote:
Sanders said that when Trump said "no" in response to the question about whether Russia was still attacking us (contradicting his own intelligence officials), that he was actually saying "no, no more questions." Ofc this ignores the fact he took another question after that.
It's as blatant of lying as the "Kelly was mad about the breakfast" BS last week. That woman is a national disgrace. Out of curiousity, how is Sanders viewed on the right? I never hear much about SHS so I genuinely don't know if they talk about her much or what they say.
take it for what it's worth, but /T_D loves her
|
|
|
On July 19 2018 07:16 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 05:30 On_Slaught wrote:
Sanders said that when Trump said "no" in response to the question about whether Russia was still attacking us (contradicting his own intelligence officials), that he was actually saying "no, no more questions." Ofc this ignores the fact he took another question after that.
It's as blatant of lying as the "Kelly was mad about the breakfast" BS last week. That woman is a national disgrace. Out of curiousity, how is Sanders viewed on the right? I never hear much about SHS so I genuinely don't know if they talk about her much or what they say.
Sanders is viewed as a guy who, while you don't agree with him on much, you can at least respect as a guy who genuinely believes in what he says and doesn't sell out to the powers that be. That if elected would actualy try to deliver on what he said.
|
On July 19 2018 07:39 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 07:16 iamthedave wrote:On July 19 2018 05:30 On_Slaught wrote:
Sanders said that when Trump said "no" in response to the question about whether Russia was still attacking us (contradicting his own intelligence officials), that he was actually saying "no, no more questions." Ofc this ignores the fact he took another question after that.
It's as blatant of lying as the "Kelly was mad about the breakfast" BS last week. That woman is a national disgrace. Out of curiousity, how is Sanders viewed on the right? I never hear much about SHS so I genuinely don't know if they talk about her much or what they say. Sanders is viewed as a guy who, while you don't agree with him on much, you can at least respect as a guy who genuinely believes in what he says and doesn't sell out to the powers that be. That if elected would actualy try to deliver on what he said.
Sarah's a guy?
|
On July 19 2018 07:34 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 07:31 IyMoon wrote:On July 19 2018 07:16 iamthedave wrote:On July 19 2018 05:30 On_Slaught wrote:
Sanders said that when Trump said "no" in response to the question about whether Russia was still attacking us (contradicting his own intelligence officials), that he was actually saying "no, no more questions." Ofc this ignores the fact he took another question after that.
It's as blatant of lying as the "Kelly was mad about the breakfast" BS last week. That woman is a national disgrace. Out of curiousity, how is Sanders viewed on the right? I never hear much about SHS so I genuinely don't know if they talk about her much or what they say. take it for what it's worth, but /T_D loves her For anyone else that is old and out of touch like me I googled /T_D and it is "the Donald" on reddit, and just the Donald.
Basically a safezone for hypertrumpets.
|
On July 19 2018 07:39 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 07:16 iamthedave wrote:On July 19 2018 05:30 On_Slaught wrote:
Sanders said that when Trump said "no" in response to the question about whether Russia was still attacking us (contradicting his own intelligence officials), that he was actually saying "no, no more questions." Ofc this ignores the fact he took another question after that.
It's as blatant of lying as the "Kelly was mad about the breakfast" BS last week. That woman is a national disgrace. Out of curiousity, how is Sanders viewed on the right? I never hear much about SHS so I genuinely don't know if they talk about her much or what they say. Sanders is viewed as a guy who, while you don't agree with him on much, you can at least respect as a guy who genuinely believes in what he says and doesn't sell out to the powers that be. That if elected would actualy try to deliver on what he said. Ehm he was asking about Sarah Huckabee Sanders, WH Press Secretay.
You know, the women that keeps lying to the American people to explain away Trump's dumb shit.
|
Speaking of SH Sanders:
White House entertaining Russian proposal to interrogate U.S. citizens
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Wednesday that President Trump would discuss a Russian proposal to question American citizens, including former U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul, whom the Kremlin accuses of committing crimes in Russia.
"Russian authorities yesterday named several Americans who they want to question whom they claim were involved in quote-unquote crimes in their terms, including former Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul. Does President Trump support that idea? Is he open to having U.S. officials questioned by Russia?" New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman asked Sanders.
Sanders replied that an announcement would be forthcoming on the Russian proposal after Mr. Trump discussed it "his team."
"The president's going to meet with his team and we'll let you know when we have an announcement on that," Sanders said. When pressed on whether Putin had raised the idea with Mr. Trump, Sanders said that there was "some conversation about it," but that there "wasn't a commitment made on behalf of the United States."
Emphasis mine.
So... when asked about the possibility of sending a US Ambassador to Putin for "questioning", the Trump WH response is... to think about it? Is this for real?
I feel like Trump is overplaying himself into Russia here, like Republican senators are at risk of growing a spine in defense of the US here, that's how badly Trump is mangling this. It's like watching a Manchurian candidate on bath salts.
EDIT: Okay, I actually quoted the tamest part of that story. The next paragraphs quote Trump as having said it was an incredible offer the first time Putin mentioned the idea. I missed this from the first round of Helsinki news. Weow.
|
On July 19 2018 07:49 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 07:39 Sermokala wrote:On July 19 2018 07:16 iamthedave wrote:On July 19 2018 05:30 On_Slaught wrote:
Sanders said that when Trump said "no" in response to the question about whether Russia was still attacking us (contradicting his own intelligence officials), that he was actually saying "no, no more questions." Ofc this ignores the fact he took another question after that.
It's as blatant of lying as the "Kelly was mad about the breakfast" BS last week. That woman is a national disgrace. Out of curiousity, how is Sanders viewed on the right? I never hear much about SHS so I genuinely don't know if they talk about her much or what they say. Sanders is viewed as a guy who, while you don't agree with him on much, you can at least respect as a guy who genuinely believes in what he says and doesn't sell out to the powers that be. That if elected would actualy try to deliver on what he said. Ehm he was asking about Sarah Huckabee Sanders, WH Press Secretay. You know, the women that keeps lying to the American people to explain away Trump's dumb shit.
I don't think the incidental conflation of the schema around "Sanders" is something politicos are unaware of. He could have been being intentionally obtuse (since SHS was said as well) but pretty sure it was a mistake.
|
Oh I guess I was mistaken on who he was refering to.
I mean she isn't really that much of a figure. This is her first job and press secretary is known for being a rather vapid and PR eccentric position.
|
On July 19 2018 08:04 Sermokala wrote:
Oh I guess I was mistaken on who he was refering to.
I mean she isn't really that much of a figure. This is her first job and press secretary is known for being a rather vapid and PR eccentric position.
That’s a really unfair assessment of that position. Traditional it has been a hard job where people have had to know what the fuck they were doing. Trumps White House it mostly revolves around justifying Trumps dumb bullshit.
The White House just announced that our budget is screwed less than a year after the massive tax cuts. It seems it isn’t a question of if the crash comes, but when and how hard it will be.
|
On July 19 2018 07:58 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Speaking of SH Sanders: White House entertaining Russian proposal to interrogate U.S. citizensShow nested quote +
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Wednesday that President Trump would discuss a Russian proposal to question American citizens, including former U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul, whom the Kremlin accuses of committing crimes in Russia.
"Russian authorities yesterday named several Americans who they want to question whom they claim were involved in quote-unquote crimes in their terms, including former Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul. Does President Trump support that idea? Is he open to having U.S. officials questioned by Russia?" New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman asked Sanders.
Sanders replied that an announcement would be forthcoming on the Russian proposal after Mr. Trump discussed it "his team."
"The president's going to meet with his team and we'll let you know when we have an announcement on that," Sanders said. When pressed on whether Putin had raised the idea with Mr. Trump, Sanders said that there was "some conversation about it," but that there "wasn't a commitment made on behalf of the United States."
Emphasis mine. So... when asked about the possibility of sending a US Ambassador to Putin for "questioning", the Trump WH response is... to think about it? Is this for real? I feel like Trump is overplaying himself into Russia here, like Republican senators are at risk of growing a spine in defense of the US here, that's how badly Trump is mangling this. It's like watching a Manchurian candidate on bath salts. EDIT: Okay, I actually quoted the tamest part of that story. The next paragraphs quote Trump as having said it was an incredible offer the first time Putin mentioned the idea. I missed this from the first round of Helsinki news. Weow.
Yes, Trump isn't that good of a negotiator. I guess I had thought that a business guru would be good at that sort of thing. I've now come to the conclusion that Trump is the worst at being president. That's difficult to do, as it is mostly a "show up for photo ops & stick to your advisor-provided talking points" kind of position. I have now changed my thinking in terms of what should go down in 2020 and am hoping that a liberal becomes prez! The oval office has become a dog-and-pony show & is a circus act that shouldn't be taken seriously, in my opinion. Traveling through AZ, which tends to vote Republican, there are a lot of people who think Trump isn't that great at what he does. The Koch brothers of the think tank the Reason Foundation have turned against him as well.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/voters-in-obama-trump-country-do-not-regret-switching/#slide-1
This article illustrates some of the talking points that people have been mentioning in social media & in the news in the past
|
United States41989 Posts
On July 17 2018 04:40 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 04:24 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:54 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 03:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
People don't actually want Trump to do anything differently when it comes to Russia, they just want him to talk differently right?
Besides how he talks about Russia people saying he's too pro-Russia, or a pawn or whatever, wouldn't really change anything else would they?
Additionally, The NYT and a LOT of liberals are exposing a latent homophobia with shit like this.
Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action. Forgive me, but why should Trump publicly build up his intelligence agencies rather than equivocate on them? These are the same intelligence agencies that tried to infiltrate his campaign and bait him into committing a crime. These are the same intelligence agencies who have been leaking shit to undermine his presidency at every turn. These are the same intelligence agencies that had people like Brennan heading them, who today, has ludicrously accused the president of treason for what he said at the press conference. There's no political reason for Trump to give them cover until he gets them under control. This is the funniest part of all this. The easiest way to tell if people's positions are partisan or principled is asking what they think about US intelligence agencies. On July 17 2018 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:49 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:People don't actually want Trump to do anything differently when it comes to Russia, they just want him to talk differently right? Besides how he talks about Russia people saying he's too pro-Russia, or a pawn or whatever, wouldn't really change anything else would they? Additionally, The NYT and a LOT of liberals are exposing a latent homophobia with shit like this. https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1018770963813490688 Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action. First part is the "say it different" part, what sanctions are you talking about though? I'm not qualified to suggest sanctions. None of us that post here are. But based on my understanding of history, direct attempts to meddle in our democracy warrant some amount of retaliation. We are not retaliating. So vague calls for a retaliation that no one can describe beyond "sanctions" of which Trump's (reluctantly) added the ones congress wanted. Doesn't seem like the people pushing this stuff really have any plan or comprehension of what should be done differently other than the rhetoric and optics. This is an exceptionally silly attempt to dismiss my views because you have never offered anything like you are describing either. We are all tragically ignorant compared to anyone who matters on these topics. I'd enjoy reading an actual bill you have written. Any form of reform or anything that you have ever suggested (whether racial, foreign, etc) have had a similar level of expertise. You are a nobody. So am I. I don't have a report to hand you describing how to appropriately punish russia. That's what we have governments for. I could list off some list of things based on previous sanctions, but that doesn't make it productive. You are trying to pretend this argument belongs in a quantitative rather than qualitative space. That's silly and has no justification. We are not fit for quantitative discussion of international retaliation. But we know enough to say when something should or should not happen. I just see it as pointless blathering. No on even knows what they are calling for or why besides how they will feel about it. Quite different than something like abolishing the police. Surely if Democrats want this stuff their government representatives have that bill you're talking about. Quit calling people out on the details. Unless you have details of your own. You love to talk down to everyone but never post your own position. Then like 5 pages into the argument where one person has defended there position they post a question to you. And you dodge or say " I never quite said that". If you want his position to be clearer (and I think it is very clear) at least take a position yourself. I hate people that bring up problems all the time but never offer solutions. Trump should probably be executed, but jailed would be fine with me. Our system is designed to prevent that from happening so all this hand-wringing over Trump-Russia as if that's the problem is petty and pointless. I haven't been shy about that position. Surely people see the comedy in this "of course we don't know what we are calling for" coming from the same people who expect detailed proposals for anything that doesn't immediately align with their perspective. Bullet to the back of the head like your man Lennin and Stalin. Why even have a trial. Who else should we murder while we are at it? And who should have this power, you personally or someone else?
The Founding Fathers specifically intended for citizens to have this power, should they need it.
|
|
|
United States41989 Posts
Trump having lied to us about his knowledge of the Russian interference in the election isn't news, it's background noise, it didn't change a damn thing the last time that bombshell dropped, or the time before.
Trump getting caught lying to the American people literally doesn't hurt him anymore. Those who know he lies already know, they're not going to know it more because he does it again. And those who believe his lies will continue to believe it against any amount of facts. It's full "there are five lights" now. We can see it in the topic with Trump supporters who will happily state that they don't care if Trump lies, that what Trump says doesn't matter to them.
|
United States41989 Posts
On July 17 2018 07:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 06:38 Nouar wrote:On July 17 2018 05:50 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 05:44 Nouar wrote:On July 17 2018 03:54 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 03:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:People don't actually want Trump to do anything differently when it comes to Russia, they just want him to talk differently right? Besides how he talks about Russia people saying he's too pro-Russia, or a pawn or whatever, wouldn't really change anything else would they? Additionally, The NYT and a LOT of liberals are exposing a latent homophobia with shit like this. https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1018770963813490688 Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action. Forgive me, but why should Trump publicly build up his intelligence agencies rather than equivocate on them? These are the same intelligence agencies that tried to infiltrate his campaign and bait him into committing a crime. These are the same intelligence agencies who have been leaking shit to undermine his presidency at every turn. These are the same intelligence agencies that had people like Brennan heading them, who today, has ludicrously accused the president of treason for what he said at the press conference. There's no political reason for Trump to give them cover until he gets them under control. Hello ? Separation of powers, democracy ? Arguing that they were or are corrupt may be valid, but wanting them to be under the control of the executive power, please do not. Seriously. Especially under this president that is talking about nukes like I talk about my breakfast. We have been at peace (mostly, at least in our western areas) for 70 years, and you want the balance of power of the strongest country in the world to fail ? Separation of powers is not a license to commit treason or other criminal acts. If the actions that the FBI and intelligence community have taken against Trump and his campaign are without legitimate predicate (which is not only the default presumption, but also appears to be the case in fact so far), then those organizations need to be thoroughly cleaned out. And at what point would you be able to admit that the current investigation is justified ? There have already been more than 20 indictments of russian nationals, so if anything, it has at least brought some answers. What would be your belief if it happens that the investigation did not start with legitimacy, but end up bringing consistent proof ? Are you going to deny these proofs are valid because the trigger of the investigation was unjustified and put a cloth upon your eyes ? Will you be able to even trust the results of the investigation ? Of any ? Do you believe breaking the principles of a democracy and turning to concentration of powers to protect ONE guy is justified ? Even if it is the president himself ? Cleaned out != taking control. What are your red lines to protect your country ? Seeing what happened today, which felt unbelievable to the whole world... Is it still not enough ? Or did this one guy suddenly shift the balance and have half the population starting a personality cult instead of behaving like a people... I'm so waiting 20-30years if we still have a world, to get to the bottom of what happened these past few years. The current investigation -- as in the appointment of the Mueller investigation -- will not be justified until evidence surfaces linking Trump and/or his campaign to Russian interference in the election. What has been prosecuted so far does not warrant Mueller's appointment. All of that can be handled by the DoJ proper. The cost and the damage that has been to the country by Mueller's appointment has been extraordinary. If Russia wanted to sow discord in the US, they couldn't have hoped for a better result.
We already have that evidence. Dude, pay attention.
|
On July 19 2018 13:02 KwarK wrote:
Trump having lied to us about his knowledge of the Russian interference in the election isn't news, it's background noise, it didn't change a damn thing the last time that bombshell dropped, or the time before.
Trump getting caught lying to the American people literally doesn't hurt him anymore. Those who know he lies already know, they're not going to know it more because he does it again. And those who believe his lies will continue to believe it against any amount of facts. It's full "there are five lights" now. We can see it in the topic with Trump supporters who will happily state that they don't care if Trump lies, that what Trump says doesn't matter to them.
This is different. This is direct evidence from a Putin confidant corroborated by multiple other intelligence agencies.
Trump always made this sound like there are arguments to be made Russians didn't do it. This shows he never actually thought that.
|
United States41989 Posts
On July 19 2018 13:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 13:02 KwarK wrote:
Trump having lied to us about his knowledge of the Russian interference in the election isn't news, it's background noise, it didn't change a damn thing the last time that bombshell dropped, or the time before.
Trump getting caught lying to the American people literally doesn't hurt him anymore. Those who know he lies already know, they're not going to know it more because he does it again. And those who believe his lies will continue to believe it against any amount of facts. It's full "there are five lights" now. We can see it in the topic with Trump supporters who will happily state that they don't care if Trump lies, that what Trump says doesn't matter to them. This is different. This is direct evidence from a Putin confidant corroborated by multiple other intelligence agencies. Trump always made this sound like there are arguments to be made Russians didn't do it. This shows he never actually thought that.
Do you expect xDaunt to suddenly admit that there is a problem here? If not, nothing has changed, nothing is different.
|
On July 19 2018 14:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 13:56 Mohdoo wrote:On July 19 2018 13:02 KwarK wrote:
Trump having lied to us about his knowledge of the Russian interference in the election isn't news, it's background noise, it didn't change a damn thing the last time that bombshell dropped, or the time before.
Trump getting caught lying to the American people literally doesn't hurt him anymore. Those who know he lies already know, they're not going to know it more because he does it again. And those who believe his lies will continue to believe it against any amount of facts. It's full "there are five lights" now. We can see it in the topic with Trump supporters who will happily state that they don't care if Trump lies, that what Trump says doesn't matter to them. This is different. This is direct evidence from a Putin confidant corroborated by multiple other intelligence agencies. Trump always made this sound like there are arguments to be made Russians didn't do it. This shows he never actually thought that. Do you expect xDaunt to suddenly admit that there is a problem here? If not, nothing has changed, nothing is different.
I think a big reason a lot of people believed Trump was the fact that he made it sound like he was getting all the same information at the same time as everyone else and was basing his judgments on the things other people see on the news.
The simple fact that Trump pretended to not have ever seen or known of evidence is enough for people to see he is being deceptive. But maybe I'm optimistic. But I really do think this will make people ask the question of "why did Trump pretended to not know?"
|
|
|
On July 19 2018 14:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 12:48 KwarK wrote:On July 17 2018 04:40 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 04:24 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:54 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 03:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:People don't actually want Trump to do anything differently when it comes to Russia, they just want him to talk differently right? Besides how he talks about Russia people saying he's too pro-Russia, or a pawn or whatever, wouldn't really change anything else would they? Additionally, The NYT and a LOT of liberals are exposing a latent homophobia with shit like this. https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1018770963813490688 Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action. Forgive me, but why should Trump publicly build up his intelligence agencies rather than equivocate on them? These are the same intelligence agencies that tried to infiltrate his campaign and bait him into committing a crime. These are the same intelligence agencies who have been leaking shit to undermine his presidency at every turn. These are the same intelligence agencies that had people like Brennan heading them, who today, has ludicrously accused the president of treason for what he said at the press conference. There's no political reason for Trump to give them cover until he gets them under control. This is the funniest part of all this. The easiest way to tell if people's positions are partisan or principled is asking what they think about US intelligence agencies. On July 17 2018 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:49 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
First part is the "say it different" part, what sanctions are you talking about though? I'm not qualified to suggest sanctions. None of us that post here are. But based on my understanding of history, direct attempts to meddle in our democracy warrant some amount of retaliation. We are not retaliating. So vague calls for a retaliation that no one can describe beyond "sanctions" of which Trump's (reluctantly) added the ones congress wanted. Doesn't seem like the people pushing this stuff really have any plan or comprehension of what should be done differently other than the rhetoric and optics. This is an exceptionally silly attempt to dismiss my views because you have never offered anything like you are describing either. We are all tragically ignorant compared to anyone who matters on these topics. I'd enjoy reading an actual bill you have written. Any form of reform or anything that you have ever suggested (whether racial, foreign, etc) have had a similar level of expertise. You are a nobody. So am I. I don't have a report to hand you describing how to appropriately punish russia. That's what we have governments for. I could list off some list of things based on previous sanctions, but that doesn't make it productive. You are trying to pretend this argument belongs in a quantitative rather than qualitative space. That's silly and has no justification. We are not fit for quantitative discussion of international retaliation. But we know enough to say when something should or should not happen. I just see it as pointless blathering. No on even knows what they are calling for or why besides how they will feel about it. Quite different than something like abolishing the police. Surely if Democrats want this stuff their government representatives have that bill you're talking about. Quit calling people out on the details. Unless you have details of your own. You love to talk down to everyone but never post your own position. Then like 5 pages into the argument where one person has defended there position they post a question to you. And you dodge or say " I never quite said that". If you want his position to be clearer (and I think it is very clear) at least take a position yourself. I hate people that bring up problems all the time but never offer solutions. Trump should probably be executed, but jailed would be fine with me. Our system is designed to prevent that from happening so all this hand-wringing over Trump-Russia as if that's the problem is petty and pointless. I haven't been shy about that position. Surely people see the comedy in this "of course we don't know what we are calling for" coming from the same people who expect detailed proposals for anything that doesn't immediately align with their perspective. Bullet to the back of the head like your man Lennin and Stalin. Why even have a trial. Who else should we murder while we are at it? And who should have this power, you personally or someone else? The Founding Fathers specifically intended for citizens to have this power, should they need it. That was 200 hundred years ago the world has changed a ton. It is time to realise they didnt have some great unmatchable wisdom, but were rather doing the best with what they knew. We know better and more now, and can di better. And the world, and technology has changed in ways they could not forsee.
I don't think any of that undermines the underlying reasoning or purpose. There's more than a 1% chance Trump will have to be removed from office by force, and it wouldn't be impeachment (as a topical example).
|
|
|
|
|
|
605
EPT
